[throwaway080383]

I'm surprised that despite being able to concisely explain why Apple is preferable to Google due to the privacy implications of their respective business models, they're perfectly content with a Google Home in their kitchen!

Maybe I'm paranoid, but isn't it obvious how the whole Home Speaker story ends? "We're not spying on you, we're learning your behaviors to offer a better experience!"

[vokep]

Something like...

>We're not spying on you, we're learning your behaviors to offer a better experience!

Okay I guess that makes sense, I like when stuff is designed well around what I actually want from it, this will help in that, cool!

>We're not spying on you, we're just going to report you to the police if our ML algorithm detects a child screaming for their life

Wow okay, that kinda seems like crossing a line, but I guess it makes sense and is going to be good to protect kids

>We're not spying on you, we're just going to lower your reputation on x/y/z service if we hear racial slurs

Uh, I get where that's coming from, but this is clearly spying. Well, a private company can do what they like I guess, and its understandable, who other than racists wouldn't want less racists online.

>We're not spying on you, we're just going to let your insurance company know if we hear you coughing

Woah okay what the fuck

>We're not spying on you, we're just going to block you from x/y/z service if your political views differ from our CEO and put out a warning to services provided by other companies.

Hey what the - I mean, wow what a great update. goes in seperate private room WHAT THE FUCK I NEED TO GET RID OF THIS

>We're spying on you, we're just going to arrest you if you will not comply. Don't worry about what law you're charged under, we just blackmailed the police and those who tried to protest got arrested, our company policy is your local law now.

What a great update, thanks awesome [super evil company name here] developers and all employees, what great work they do! internally oh god oh god oh god oh god oh god

Of course this goes way to the extreme, but that's my point, this is the kind of seed that makes that stuff possible. Doesn't mean its absolutely evil, but the potential is there.

[hi5eyes]

@Amazon will soon give Alexa a 'rudimentary form of emotional awareness,' making her able to hear your whispers & frustrations. She will also be capable of listening for trouble such as breaking glass or a smoke alarm when you’re not home: “We’re going beyond recognizing words." https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1042885315575332870

also reminds me of a parent tweeting about how her child thinks of Alexa as another person in the house, kids are growing up with every aspect of their life fully integrated with spyware-as-a-service

"We have the brightest minds of today trying to figure out how to get people to click ads on the Internet" https://gizmodo.com/senators-urge-ftc-to-investigate-manipul...

[brongondwana]

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

[stinkytaco]

I don't have any smart speakers in my house, but I can also see how a rational person might accept the trade-off. Aggregate data to support advertising isn't necessarily evil, nor is using that data to improve service. In fact, you could argue that's what a good business should be doing: evaluating customer needs and adjusting to meet them.

[tedivm]

I can't speak for the google home, but with the echo there's a lot of work that has gone into making it so it is difficult, on a hardware level, to record without showing some sign of doing so. When the mic is on the lights are on as well and the mute button is a physical hardware disconnect that stops voltage from the mics.

There is also some interesting circuitry around the mic itself- the keyword activation chip essentially has control over the mics- they buffer input until they hear the codeword ('alexa') and then activate the main circuitry and dump the buffer into it. The upside to this is that software can't turn the mic on by itself- the chip needs to help. This isn't completely perfect though as once the software has been given control it can keep that control forever (with the caveat that lights would be on).

It's possible to use technology to our advantage without having to sacrifice privacy, we just have to demand it (and, as we all should have learned from Therac-25, hardware limits are preferable over software).

[Apocryphon]

Rational people are also emotional, and apathy is the default emotion. Recognizing that many products are privacy invasive becomes the same as realizing that they are produced in ways that harm the environment, or hurt workers. A fact acknowledged but accepted in exchange for the benefits they offer.

[stinkytaco]

If you're equating giving up personal data to harming the environment or workers, I'm afraid I don't agree. One of these actions is under your control, is a trade off we make simply to live in society, and even provides some benefits to users and society. To bank, to get mail, to shop online, to support services we like, to receive communications, etc, etc. Privacy is also something you can control, rather than something that is being perpetrated on other people or places that do not have agency in the matter. There is a place for privacy regulation and education, but it's not the same as environmental or human damage.

[Apocryphon]

The point is that these are all examples of negative choices that consumers choose to take because it’s easier to accept short-term personal gain while causing long-term, depersonalized, harm.

[stinkytaco]

My point is that if you assume giving up some privacy is going to cause long-term harm, then you are correct. But a rational person can weigh the cost/benefit of giving up privacy for some convenience and decide there's a net gain to it. People who use the internet or carry cell phones or even vote or do banking have given up personal information, and likely know they've given that information. If they found the trade off beneficial, it's not necessarily apathy, but a decision. It may be a bridge to far for you, but perhaps not for everyone.

[azernik]

If you read carefully, he didn't actually say iPhones were preferable: "Apple’s less data-focused approach has allowed it to take the high road on privacy. That strategy has potentially insulated the company from regulations and public scorn, but it also could leave Apple with dumber products than its rivals."

[throwaway080383]

Fair enough. I guess I presumed the preference since he uses an iPhone.